Disposed

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2013WP/2252/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired teacher, sought a writ directing the Bombay Municipal Corporation to release her pension and retirement dues. The Court accepted the Corporation's undertaking to pay the dues and directed payment of interest at 9% p.a. from six months after her retirement.

What did the court decide?

Corporation to release trained scale pension and other retirement dues with interest at 9% p.a. from six months after retirement.

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh Vs Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

(WP 2252 OF 2011)

VAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2252 OF 2011

¶6

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh ...Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr.R. G.Walia for Petitioner Mr.S.S. Pakale with Mr. Vinod Mahadik for Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation.

¶14

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the Respondents to release the regular pension and other retirement dues w.e.f. 31.10.2010 along with interest.

1/3

(WP 2252 OF 2011)

It is the case of the Petitioner that she has been working as a Assistant Teacher with Respondent No.4, which is a private aided school since 9.7.1975. The Petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2010. Prior to that, the Petitioner had already completed her D.Ed. in the year 1981 and the Bombay Municipal Corporation had granted Trained Teacher Scale to the Petitioner on 29.9.1981 and, thereafter, she was promoted as a Head Mistress and her promotion was approved by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. According to the Petitioner, before her retirement, Respondent No.4 has sent all the relevant papers to the BMC for granting pension to the Petitioner. It is her case that the retirement benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment etc. have not been paid though she had worked in the recognized aided school.

¶19

An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Corporation dated 20.12.2013. In the said affidavit in reply, the Education Officer has admitted that the proposal for her retirement benefits was submitted by the school before she retired. It is, however, stated that during the pendency of the said proposal, the Corporation had issued a circular dated 24^th August, 2012 and by virtue of the said circulation, the Petitioner become entitled to get an additional benefits. It is stated in the affidavit that, therefore, a revised pension proposal was submitted by Respondent No.4 to the Corporation on 23.1.2013. It is further stated that during the pendency of the proposal, the Corporation had granted minimum pension in favour of the Petitioner vide its order dated 12.2.2013

2/3

(WP 2252 OF 2011)

w.e.f. 1.11.2010. It is then submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to receive full trained scale pension as per the Circular dated 24.8.2012 and that the said full pension would be paid on or before 31^st January, 2014. It is further stated that the Corporation has taken a decision to initiate departmental inquiry against the erring officers.

¶24

In view of the affidavit in reply filed by the Education Officer and more particularly the undertaking given by the Corporation in paragraph 2, in our view, the petition will have to be disposed of by accepting the undertaking given by the Corporation to release trained scale pension and other retirement dues to the Petitioner. However, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the Petitioner is entitled to get an interest @ 9% p.a. on pension and other retirement dues from six months after her retirement i.e. from 31^st October, 2010 till actual payment. With these directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶25

[M.S. SONAK, J.]

¶26

[V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶27

VAISHALI TIKAM

¶28

3/3

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahar Parwati Kumar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (of the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika) Vs A.P. Sales Corporation and Anr.

Deepak Shamsundar Gavaskar Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Re-Construction and 2 Ors.

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited Vs Union of India the Secretary Minister of Environment and Forrest and 3ORS

Margarida Quadros Vs Union of India and Anr.

Chandrakanta Bhavanidas Gulati Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 3 Ors.

Vikrant Subodh Sawatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.